The question was really whether that was your criteria for claiming my analogy was not comparable. Reading the rest of your comment, I see now that is not the reason.
It seems to me whether or not you can get something for nothing is rather orthogonal to the question of whether it's absurd to expect privacy while not paying for anything.
Are privacy and security less important than food safety? As I posted the question my immediate thought was, as yours, obviously, but the more I think about it the less I am sure. A single security breach in a critical information service could potentially have profound far-reaching effects possibly worse than a local case of food poisoning.
It seems to me whether or not you can get something for nothing is rather orthogonal to the question of whether it's absurd to expect privacy while not paying for anything.
Are privacy and security less important than food safety? As I posted the question my immediate thought was, as yours, obviously, but the more I think about it the less I am sure. A single security breach in a critical information service could potentially have profound far-reaching effects possibly worse than a local case of food poisoning.